1) An alternate proposal for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) is presented that uses public key infrastructure (PKI) instead of obscure sunrise codes used in ICANN's model. 2) Issues with ICANN's sunrise and claims models are discussed, including complexity for trademark owners and inability of registries to access trademark information. 3) The alternate proposal aims to reduce complexity, increase security and flexibility, and provide registries access to trademark information submitted by applicants.

1. Alternate Trademark
Clearinghouse Proposal
October 9, 2012
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

2. Introduction
» Late 2011: Trademark Implementation Assistance Group (IAG) established.
» Jan. 2012: Final Applicant Guidebook posted
» April 2012: ICANN posts summary of Input from IAG and draft implementation
model.
» June 2012: ICANN announces selection of Deloitte and IBM as TMCH
providers with Preliminary Cost model.
» July 2012: TMCH-Tech list formed to discuss implementation issues.
» August 2012: Forum on Technical Implementation Issues.
» Sept. 2012: Community developed alternate models released for comment.
» Sept. 25, 2012: ICANN posts next version of TMCH Requirements document
for comment. No mention of alternate proposed models.
2 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

3. Development of Alternate TMCH
Proposals
» ARI / Neustar submit initial draft of alternate proposals on
June 20, 2012.
» Comments received from other registries and registrars and
extensive discussion in Brussels at technical
implementation forum.
» Overwhelming support from the technical providers of >90% of
the new gTLD applications on alternate models as opposed to
ICANN implementation models.
» ARI, Neustar, Verisign & Demand Media worked on revised
version of alternate models based on feedback.
» 9/26/12: Release of Alternate TMCH Models to community.
3 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

4. Issues with ICANN-Proposed Sunrise
Model
1. ICANN’s model proposes use of obscure sunrise codes
» Implies that Trademark Owners have to get a unique code for each mark in
each TLD (100 marks for 1000 TLDs = 100,000 Sunrise Codes).
» Complicates ability to provide support – registries and/or registrars unable to
diagnose or resolve issues without TMCH involvement.
2. No access to trademark information for registries
» Registries looking at additional criteria have to re-engage with TMCH -
increasing costs
» Must rely on TMCH for registry eligibility requirements – creates legal
liability issues.
3. Inability for Registry to publish Sunrise information in WHOIS.
4. More burdensome for registries to store all Sunrise codes regardless of how
small/large the registries will be (increases costs).
4 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

5. Alternate Sunrise Proposal
» Uses PKI encryption/certificates as opposed to Sunrise Codes.
» 1 certificate (Signed Mark Data - SMD) per mark regardless of number of
TLDs applied for.
» TM Owner (or its agent) downloads certificate from TMCH once mark is
validated and authenticated. Certificate has TMCH “signature” on it.
» TM Owner (or its agent) uploads applicable certificate from TMCH when
providing registrar with domain name registration information.
» Registry verifies “signature” on certificate, with known “signature” of TMCH.
» Registry provided access to all information in the certificate (which TM owner
voluntarily provided to Registry).
» Registry is NOT provided with any other information from the TMCH or any information
related to marks for which no Sunrise Application was received.
» Registry allocates the domain name and notifies TMCH so that it can notify
other TM owners with matching marks.
5 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

6. Alternate Sunrise Flow
Mark Holder / Registrar Registry TMCH
Registrant
Download Generate
Public Key Key Pair
Download
Public Key
Step 1 – Distribution of Public Key
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

7. Alternate Sunrise Flow
Mark Holder / Registrar Registry TMCH
Registrant
Provide Mark
Validate
information
Trademark
to TMCH for
Information
validation
Valid?
Yes
Approve entry into
Download
TMCH & Generate
SMD
SMD
Step 2 – Mark Holder gets information into TMCH
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

8. Alternate Sunrise Flow
Mark Holder / Registrar Registry TMCH
Registrant
Provide SMD Collect
with Sunrise Application
Application
Send Receive
Application Application
with SMD with SMD
Valid
SMD?
Yes
Create the
Application
Step 3 – Mark Holder applies to TLD during Sunrise
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

9. Alternate Sunrise Flow
Mark Holder / Registrar Registry TMCH
Registrant
Sunrise Close &
Allocate Names
Successful
Application?
Add to TMCH
Notification List
Notify Registrant Notify Registrar
of Result of Result
Upload Notification Generate and
List to TMCH send NORNs
Step 4 – Allocation of Names
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

10. Alternate Sunrise - Benefits
» Reduced complexity to ICANN Model
» Allows the Registry to see trademark information of the applicant (and
only the applicant) for:
» Customer support purposes;
» Allocation;
» Additional eligibility requirements;
» Incorporation in the Registry WHOIS.
» For registries, it allows the use of a simple standard EPP extension
(decreasing costs).
» Leverage well known industry of PKI for providing trust with no need for
replicating data in highly distributed environment (security best practice)
» Certificate can also be used for other purposes including potentially for
URS (pending community input as part of URS process).
10 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

11. Issues with ICANN-Proposed
Trademark Claims Process
» ICANN Decentralized Model - involves sending entire TMCH database to every
registry.
» Unnecessary burden placed on TMCH and registries to replicate data for every
entry in the TMCH.
» Registries managing multiple TLDs will have to store multiple copies of the database.
» Involves the storage and maintenance of large data sets.
» Encrypted data is easily decrypted and can be easily data mined by registrars
and registrants across any launching TLD – Data not secure.
» Unnecessary and obscure encryption of data – customer support issues.
» Risks and issues with use of “stale” data.
» Proposed Model only considers first-come, first-served model and seemingly
ignores models that have a contention resolution process.
11 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

12. Alternate Trademark Claims Process
» Centralized Model – Breaks down TM Claims into 2 parts.
» Does a claim exist for the matching domain name string?
» If yes, please send me the claims notice to display to the registrant.
» TMCH publishes list of strings registered in the TMCH.
» Only involves the strings and NOT any other TM information.
» Potential Registrant submits domain name application through Registrar
» Registrar checks to see if domain name is available and whether it matches a
claim (by comparing to TMCH published list of strings).
» If no, name is registered as normal.
» If yes, then registrar queries TMCH to get TM Claims data, downloads notice
content from TMCH, and displays data to registrant. Registrant reads notice.
» If Registrant accepts the terms of the claim notice, name will be sent to registry to be
created.
» If registered, notice sent from Registry to TMCH to notify TM owners for
matching strings.
12 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

13. Alternate Trademark Claims Flow
Registrant Registrar Registry TMCH
(CNIS)
Download Publish list of
List of Mark mark DNS
DNS labels labels
Step 1 – Distribution of Mark DNS Labels
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

14. Alternate Trademark Claims Flow
Registrant Registrar Registry TMCH
(CNIS)
Attempt to register Check domain Return domain
domain name availability availability
Domain
Available?
Check if subject Return mark
to claim match
Matching
mark?
Step 2 – Registration of Names During Claims (Claims Check)
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

15. Alternate Trademark Claims Flow
Registrant Registrar Registry TMCH
(CNIS)
Return claims
Get claims notice
notice info with
info
SCNS
Read Display
claims notice claims notice
Yes Receive
Accept Send registration
Notice? Registration
with SCNS
With SCNS
No
Finished
Step 3 – Registration of Names During Claims (Claims Notice)
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

16. Alternate Trademark Claims Flow
Registrant Registrar Registry TMCH
Matching
mark?
Yes
SCNS passed
and valid?
Yes No
Add to TMCH
Notification List
Create Domain
Upload Notification Generate and
List to TMCH send NORNs
Step 4 – Registration of names During Claims (Registration)
© Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

17. Alternate TM Claims - Benefits
» Provides a realistic option for the TMCH to manage data mining based
on various centralized protection mechanisms (e.g., rate limiting,
authentication, etc.)
» Does not involve sending entire database to Registries.
» Technically efficient and simple to implement
» System is auditable for dispute processes to ensure that notices were
generated and made available to the registrant.
» Accommodates multiple allocation mechanisms during landrush /
general availability.
17 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

18. Alternate TM Claims – Increased
Complexity for TMCH Providers
» Requires TMCH to be highly available, redundant with strict SLAs for uptime
and processing time.
» Puts TMCH in critical path for a limited percentage of registrations if a TM
claim exists for a name.
» If TMCH is “down”, then registries will not be able to process a registration for
domain names that match a TM in the TMCH.
» We recommend TMCH follow standard requirements that gTLD
Registries are required to follow:
» Data should be escrowed with reputable escrow provider;
» Redundant data centers to ensure robustness;
» Industry-standard business continuity plans;
» Strict SLAs with financial penalties.
18 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

19. Alternate TM Claims – Outstanding
Issues
There are some issues we need feedback on.
1. How are claims to work during landrush style period where
registrations are not on a first-come, first-served principal.
2. How long after retrieving a TM Claims notice is it allowed to be
accepted for use in a domain name registration?
3. How long after accepting a TM Claims notice is that acceptance
allowed to be used in a domain name registration without checking for
updated data at the TMCH?
4. How do we deal with issues of “pre-registrations” that were accepted
by registrars prior to TM Claims period.
19 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential

20. Conclusion
» Considering the decreased complexity, decreased cost,
increased security, increased flexibility, and overwhelming
support of the registry community, we are asking for your
support with the alternate model.
» ICANN currently has a public comment period underway
with comments due on Oct. 15th; Reply period ends Nov.
7th. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-
docs-24sep12-en.htm.
» If you support the alternate models, please submit
comments.
20 © Neustar, Inc. / Proprietary and Confidential